War Tax Resisters in Vermont

Anti-war activist Linda Leehman refuses to put her money where her mouth is.
And that’s the whole point.

By withholding about 50 percent of her federal tax bill, Leehman says she at
least partially washes her hands of the blood spilled in
U.S.-waged military
operations.

“It’s a deeply moral and spiritual decision when you decide that killing is
wrong,” Leehman, a 31-year tax resister, told about a dozen other people
gathered in the basement of the Kellogg-Hubbard Library on
Saturday. “I believe that war is murder. …
And I have to insist on my moral right to not connect myself (financially)
with what I believe is truly insane and truly abhorrent.”…

Her remarks came during a workshop for central Vermont residents looking to
find out more about tax resistance.…

For Plainfield resident Lori Barg, another tax-resistance expert offering
advice Saturday, Thoreau’s stance against
the Spanish-American War retains its relevance 157 years later.

“What’s one bullet cost? A nickel? A dime?” Barg said, as she recounted a
meeting she had with a Central American woman whose son had been killed by a
bullet fired by a
U.S. soldier.
“Since there’s no draft for women, the only way for me to be resistant was to
not pay for war.

“As horrible as I feel when I read the news, one really wonderful thing about
being a tax resister is I can say, ‘I didn’t buy that bullet.’ And that makes
me happy.”…

Varying forms of tax resistance carry varying degrees of consequence. A
common and relatively safe strategy is withholding the 3 percent federal
excise tax levied on telephone bills. About half that money goes to the
defense budget, Barg says. Another low-risk method is simply keeping your
income below the level at which the federal government begins to require
taxes. With the help of an accountant, Barg said she has kept her annual
income below that threshold.

Other resisters are bolder. Leehman, whose taxes are withheld by her
employer, claimed more dependents than legally allowed, thereby preventing
the government from taking its full legal share of earned income. She ends
up paying about half the taxes she actually owes. Leehman also publicizes
her protest by writing letters to her congressmen, local newspapers and the
IRS.…

For Lea Wood, an 89-year-old World War Ⅱ veteran arrested just this week at
an anti-war rally in Barre, tax resistance is “another piece” in her effort
to subvert her government’s military policies.

“People will say, ‘I’m only one person, what I do is so little,’” Wood says.
“But when water drops on a stone long enough, the stone wears away.
Eventually it has a cumulative effect. And tax resistance is one way to
achieve that effect.”

Time for that old familiar tune: This war costs a bunch.
Congress isn’t making it difficult for the Dubya Squad to get their hands on
as much war making money as they’d like. What are you doing to keep
your money from Congress?

The White House said Thursday that it
planned to ask Congress for an additional $70 billion to pay for the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, driving the cost of military operations in the two
countries to $120 billion this year, the highest
since the
Sept. 11 attacks.

Most of the new money would go to the war in Iraq, which already has cost an
estimated $250 billion since the
U.S. invasion in
March 2003. The additional spending, along
with other war funds the Bush administration will seek separately in its
regular budget next week, would push the price tag for combat and
nation-building since
Sept. 11, 2001, to
nearly half a trillion dollars — approaching the cost of the 13-year-long
Vietnam War.

Congress has granted all previous administration requests for war funds, and
this one is expected to be no different. But budget analysts said the size
of the newest request could make it more difficult for the Bush
administration to get any new tax cuts through Congress this year. The cost
of military operations in 2006 is $35 billion
higher than what Congress had estimated a few months ago the Defense
Department would need this year.…

The rising costs contrast starkly with projections before the war. Former
White House economic advisor Lawrence B.
Lindsey predicted in September 2002 that the
war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, drawing administration
ire for such a high estimate and eventually resigning his post.…

The $70 billion that the administration plans to seek would be added to $50
billion approved by Congress in December as
an advance on 2006 expenses, making this year
the most expensive yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are
tabulated together in federal legislation.

Congress has approved five emergency spending measures
since
Sept. 11, 2001, and
other federal funds have been moved into the effort to wage battle in Iraq
and Afghanistan. In all, more than $400 billion will have been set aside or
spent by the end of this year.…

The administration also plans to seek a down payment on
2007 war costs and will include a request for
$50 billion in its regular budget being presented to Congress on
Monday.

Find Out More!

For more information on the topic or topics below (organized as “topic →
subtopic →
sub-subtopic”), click on any of the ♦ symbols to see other pages on this site that cover the topic. Or browse the site’s topic index at the “Outline” page.